Post: #201

RIP Lived a long life.

Post: #202

Prologue: My intention is not to attack anyone in this post. Just making my points clearly and concisely from my own observations. If you don't like it, that's cool. We're all men and we can get over it.

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  Typical hate post and utter player hating bullshit representative of the exact issue I mentioned.

Claiming I'm a player hater on an forum practically comprised of 99% players, and with half of my own 2300 posts in the "game" section (and having met over 15 RVF members in real life) is just ludricrous.

The forum doesn't have 99% players. In major cities like NYC and Chicago where I have met legit members, tribes etc., the rate of players with real game is much lower. With your solid count of 15 forum meet ups, you would already know that if you were observant. Most guys even on the forum simply do not have game or do not develop game good enough to bang 8s and above somewhat consistently. It's not easy and it sure as hell doesn't come without having resources, especially when you get older.

I know the ones that have (even myself excluded) so I know what it really looks like. There are threads and posts out there to evidence some of this. For example, take the Analysis of RVF Members Game thread. You can see these members have game. It's not a lot of people. I have even promised to gift Gold membership to people that want to post in there. Unsurprisingly, there were very little takers. VERY little. If your 99% number is anywhere close to true, this thread would have been a lot more active.

While I'm not trying to psycho-analyze you, I was curious enough to browse your 2300 posts in the game thread. That pattern does not indicate "player" while it does not also indicate that you lack game. I can browse any members' posts from the last 2 years and with very few of them, I notice a pattern of solid game. You have been making some great posts in the non-game related threads though.

That said, I'm glad you met other forum members. Your credibility isn't completely shot.

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  So let me get this straight. By this standard of yours since he HAS NOT HELPED other men with specific guidance on game, he HAS NO GAME?

You can either learn game from another man willing to teach based you on his expierences (such as by reading Roosh's material or the thoughts of the guys on this forum) or you can observe other men by studying his style and interactions when seducing women. With Hef, you could do neither of these things.

Look at Hef in TV interviews through the decades....does he come across as alpha in anything he says or the way he speaks ?
Is this a man you can realistically imitate to have success with women ?

Utter bullshit. The concept of alpha is a loose one in real life, not rigid as some manosphere blogs and articles make it seem. Alpha isn't always some high testosterone, jacked up white guy. There are variations. With the 15 forum members you met, you may have already noticed this. But, I digress...

Again, Hef bangs maybe the most 8 - 10s by leveraging his lifestyle. I have yet to meet a player even on the forum that has been able to do that consistently. It is not easy in real life to do that without resources. So when a man does it with resources, that's not something I would write off as "non-game" or "un-alpha." That's subjective bullshit, yet again.

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  However, Steve McQueen and Jack Nicholson did because they played parts in movies you paid to watch and that was enough for you? I mean your game actually improved by watching these guys play fictional characters on screen. Your statement, not mine. In this case, please tell me how many 7s or 8s you have bedded from this learning. I would like to know.

Yes, my game did improve by watching these actors. Just as an example, Heartiste (Roissy) wrote an entire blog post with a second by second breakdown of how to learn game from a single scene of a few minutes in a Jack Nicholson movie called "As Good As It Gets". You can read it here:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/10/...-movies-7/

That one scene alone teaches you more on passing shit tests, acting alpha, self control and reframing arguments, than anything Hef ever brought to the table. The full 5 minute video link is broken, but you can see most of the scene here:





Heartiste did another full blog post on Mcqueen's body language from a single picture here:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/06/...male-pose/



As for personal notches gained by watching this actors...how the hell would I know ? It's part of an overall red pill re-education. Once you've internalised core game techniques and start banging hotter & younger girls, you stop wondering about which individual details from all that you've learnt got them to open their legs every single time. It's not like I wake up the morning after I've banged out a girl and ask her if it was my Mcqueen-esque body language in the club, or my clever Nicholson-ian reframing during our bar conversation that got her attracted to me.

Let's do a quick comparison. (Yet again) Hef bangs 8s - 10s consistently. Yet watching a Steve Mcqueen movie gave you more game BUT you still can't pin point how it has helped you bang 8s and 9s.

I get your point that it's not easy to pin point the source of the technique once it's part of you. However, we're talking high quality talent that one man pulled. Whether you learn from him or not is irrelevant when placed against the more overwhelming fact that he DID BANG THEM.

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  That said, Hef was smart and smooth enough that he singlehandedly made more money from more men than McQueen or Nicholson ever did.

I don't recall any game blog in the last decade talking about Hefner as a role model for anything related to the seduction, manosphere or red pill community.

It's because he wasn't. I never said he was. People like yourself are pretending like he should have been when he had no obligation to do so. He was a good business man that capitalized on male thirst and banged a lot more 8s, 9s and 10s than any other player I know. He did not pay to fuck them. He gave them a lifestyle experience. Two completely different things that easily got conflated in this thread. Being a guy with resources and using them to get women doesn't automatically make him a beta. If he was he never would have banged them. See the disconnect?

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  Hef did the same exact thing but you're mad because he was openly banging hot women and not giving a fuck?

Jealous of a guy who wore pyjamas all day, had 2 divorces and got all his notches due to his unlimited cash and fame, instead of through pure skill ? Right...

He got away wearing pajamas (doing what the fuck he wanted). Divorces are a problem? He used what he had (cash and fame) to get poon INSTEAD of getting it through pure skill? It is laughable that you connect the two in a blatantly nonchalant way. There is no INSTEAD. Let me connect it for you. He USED SKILL to connect cash and fame to quality poon. That's the truth. Otherwise, he would have been using escort services. Also, don't forget he banged them and also made money off of them. Anyone else did that and people call it "pimpin!"

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  Or was it because he put them in magazines naked and made money off of it?

Yeah, thats is correct.
I take issue with the fact that he was was a ruthless profiteer of men's thrist.
He is not a role model in any way for me.

I don't like that he profited from men's thirst either but those men handed over their cash. They're grown men. Are you the manosphere Jesus carrying the cross for all these mens' sins and going after the "man?" Taking issue with the man is different than hating on him. I respect him for getting poon and as far as the profiteering, it was done fair and square. I don't speak for the men that jacked off to those magazines. Their choice.

(10-01-2017 01:44 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  Game is around you as a puzzle to decipher as a man. No one has an obligation to decipher it for you. You can choose to get better at it by using your resources to find the right sources or you can choose to fap to porn or a playboy magazine. Your choice. Don't put that on Hef.

If these are the only choices, then why are we all on RVF taking about game related issues every day ?

People come here for answers. That doesn't mean the forum members are obligated to help them. I've seen many a thread where I went out of my way to help a newbie yet he implements nothing of what I recommend or suggest. I'm sure these were the guys fapping to playboy and making Hef money. That's not Hef's fault. At least they got their release. It's better than suicide.

Post: #203

(10-01-2017 04:47 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  That said, Hef was smart and smooth enough that he singlehandedly made more money from more men than McQueen or Nicholson ever did.

Actually, Jack has over 9 times the net worth of Hef when he died.

Honestly didn't know that so interesting point. That said, I'm going to challenge you on this because I'm a finance/accounting guy and a prior auditor. Is net worth the same as earnings over a lifetime? Remember net worth (assets less liabilities) is a single point in time, while earnings are comprised of activity in a certain period. I'm not sure of the answer but if you compare the mens' lifetime earnings, you may get the real answer. Keep in mind Hef's assets which may comprise mainly of playboy equity (e.g. stock), likely have a lot less value than they used to. Playboy has obviously been hit hard through internet porn etc. That doesn't mean that his net worth wasn't higher decades ago. See my point?

Post: #204

No one can claim that Hefner did not leave a mark during the few decades in which he occurred:





Does any glorified effeminate simp from the Silicon Valley have his company's logo on some of the world's deadliest fighter jets?

Post: #205

(10-07-2017 03:56 PM)Cobra Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 04:47 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(10-01-2017 05:14 AM)Cobra Wrote:  That said, Hef was smart and smooth enough that he singlehandedly made more money from more men than McQueen or Nicholson ever did.

Actually, Jack has over 9 times the net worth of Hef when he died.

Playboy has obviously been hit hard through internet porn etc. That doesn't mean that his net worth wasn't higher decades ago. See my point?

At his peak in the 70s, Hef was worth around $200 million. Jack is over $390 - it's still not even close.

The dude made money but it wasn't some huge empire like people think. It was a magazine and basic merchandise branding. Hef lost his chance at a real empire when he lost the casino business...dude would have been a billionaire if he hadn't screwed that up. And he screwed it up because he was a drug addict on a massive ego trip.

There's nothing about Hef's business sense that's admirable beyond the first 3 years of starting Playboy.

Post: #206

Playmates cheering up U.S. troops in Vietnam:

Post: #207

(10-07-2017 04:38 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Playmates cheering up U.S. troops in Vietnam:

BTW - There is a deleted scene in Apocalypse Now where they run into the Playboy Bunnies a second time. Their helicopter crash landed and they had to fuck the sailors in exchange for fuel to get back home. Feel good story of the Summer IMHO.

Post: #208

Surprisingly, the NYTimes published an interesting article this year: How Playboy explains Vietnam.

Amber Batura Wrote:FEB. 28, 2017

There’s a famous scene about halfway through “Apocalypse Now” in which Martin Sheen’s river boat pulls into a supply base, deep in the jungle. While the crew members are buying diesel fuel, the supply clerk gives them free tickets to a show — “You know,” he says, “the bunnies.” Soon they’re sitting in an improvised amphitheater around a landing pad, watching as three Playboy models hop out of a helicopter and dance to “Suzie Q.”

The scene is entirely fictional; Playboy models almost never toured Vietnam, and certainly not in groups. But if the women were never there themselves in force, the magazine itself certainly was. In fact, it’s hard to overstate how profound a role Playboy played among the millions of American soldiers and civilians stationed in Vietnam throughout the war: as entertainment, yes, but more important as news and, through its extensive letters section, as a sounding board and confessional.

Playboy’s value extended beyond the individual soldier to the military at large; the publication became a coveted and useful morale booster, at times rivaling even the longed-for letter from home. Playboy branded the war because of its unique combination of women, gadgets, and social and political commentary, making it a surprising legacy of our involvement in Vietnam. By 1967, Ward Just of The Washington Post claimed, “If World War II was a war of Stars and Stripes and Betty Grable, the war in Vietnam is Playboy magazine’s war.”

The most famous feature of the magazine was the centerfold Playmate. The magazine’s creator and editor, Hugh Hefner, had a specific image in mind for the women he portrayed. The Playmate, originally introduced as the Sweetheart of the Month, represented the ultimate companion to the Playboy. She enjoyed art, politics and music. She was sophisticated, fun and intelligent. Even more important, this ideal woman enjoyed sex as much as the ideal man described in the publication. She wasn’t after men for marriage, but for mutual pleasure and companionship.

Though following in their legacy, the Playmate models differed from the pinups of World War II. Hefner wanted images of real women their readers might see in their everyday life — a classmate, secretary or neighbor — instead of the highly stylized and often famous women of an older generation. The sexualized, yet familiar, “girl next door” was the perfect accompaniment for soldiers stationed in Vietnam. This conception of wholesome, all-American beauty and sexuality acted out by largely unknown models reminded young soldiers of the women they left behind, and for whom they were fighting — and could, if they survived, imagine returning to.

The centerfold and other visual features in the magazine served another, unintentional purpose for American troops in Vietnam. Playboy’s pictures and often-ribald cartoons conveyed changing social and sexual norms back home. The introduction of women of color in 1964 with China Lee and in 1965 with Jennifer Jackson reflected shifting attitudes regarding race. Many soldiers wrote to both the magazine and the Playmates thanking them for their inclusion in Playboy. Black soldiers, in particular, felt that the inclusion of Ms. Jackson extended the promise of Mr. Hefner’s good life to them. Viewing these images forced all Americans to rethink their definitions of beauty.

Over time, the centerfolds pushed the boundaries of social norms and legal definitions as they featured more nudity, with the inclusion of pubic hair in 1969 and full-frontal nudity in 1972. The Washington Post reported that American prisoners of war were “taken aback” by the nudity in a smuggled Playboy found on their flight home in 1973. The nudity, sexuality and diversity portrayed in the pictorials represented more permissive attitudes about sex and beauty that the soldiers had missed during their years in captivity.

Playboy’s appeal to the G.I. in Vietnam extended beyond the centerfold. The men really did read it for the articles. The magazine provided regular features, editorials, columns and ads that focused on men’s lifestyle and entertainment, including high fashion, foreign travel, modern architecture, the latest technology and luxury cars. The publication set itself up as a how-to guide for those men hoping to achieve Mr. Hefner’s vision of the good life, regardless of whether they were in San Diego or Saigon.

For young men serving in Southeast Asia, whose average age was 19, military service often provided them their first access to disposable income. Soldiers turned to the magazine for advice on what gadgets to buy, the best vehicles and the latest fashions — products they could often then buy at one of Vietnam’s enormous on-base exchanges, sprawling shopping centers to rival anything back home.

The magazine’s advice feature, “The Playboy Advisor,” encouraged men to ask questions on all manner of topics, from the best liquor to stock at home to bedroom advice to adjusting to civilian life. Troops found Playboy a useful tool in figuring out their roles in the consumer-oriented landscape they were now able to join because of the mobility and income their military service provided them.

The content moved beyond lifestyle and entertainment as the editorial mission of the magazine evolved. By the 1960s, Playboy included hard-hitting features on important social, cultural and political issues confronting the United States, often written by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, government and military leaders and top literary figures. The magazine took on topics like feminism, abortion, gay rights, race, economic issues, the counterculture movement and mass incarceration — something soldiers couldn’t get from Stars and Stripes. It offered exhaustive interviews with everyone from Malcolm X to the American Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell, exposing young G.I.s to arguments and ideas about race and African-American equality they might not have been introduced to in their hometowns. Service in Vietnam put many soldiers in direct contact with diverse races and cultures, and Playboy presented them new ideas and arguments regarding those social and cultural issues.

As early as 1965, Playboy began running articles about the Vietnam War, with an editorial position that expressed reservations about the escalating conflict. The editors were smart about it, of course: Their stance may have been critical of the president, the administration, the military leaders and the strategy, but they made sure the contributors made every effort to stay supportive of the soldiers. In 1967, troops read the liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith arguing that “no part of the original justification” for the war “remains intact,” as he dismantled the idea of monolithic Communism and other Cold War justifications for war. But that was different from attacking the troops themselves. In 1971, the journalist David Halberstam wrote in an article for Playboy that “we admired their bravery and their idealism, their courage and dedication in the face of endless problems. We believed that they represented the best of American society.” Troops in Vietnam could turn to Playboy for coverage of their own war without fearing criticism of themselves.

Playboy was also useful as a forum for the men engaged in the fighting. The publication was unique in its number of interactive features. Soldiers wrote into sections like “Dear Playboy” for advice and with reactions to articles. But those correspondents also freely described their wartime experiences and concerns. They often described what they saw as unfair treatment by the military, discussed their difficulty in transitioning back to civilian society or thanked the magazine for helping them through their time in-country. In 1973, one soldier, R. K. Redini of Chicago, wrote to Playboy about his return home. “One of the things that made my Vietnam tour endurable was seeing Playboy every month,” he said. “It sure helped all of us forget our problems — for a little while, anyway. I thank you not only for myself but also for the thousands of other guys who find a lot of pleasure in your magazine.”

In “The Playboy Forum,” another reader-response section, many wrote in addressing specific aspects of Hefner’s lengthy editorial series “The Playboy Philosophy,” including drugs, race and homosexuality in the military. The forum format allowed those who served in Vietnam to reach out not just to other soldiers, but also to the public, providing them a safe space to voice their opinions and criticisms of their service. “Traditionally, a soldier with a gripe is advised by friends to tell it to the chaplain, take it to the inspector general or write to his congressman,” a soldier wrote. “Now, probably because of letters about military injustice in The Playboy Forum, another court of last resort has been added to the list.”

Playboy magazine’s significance to the soldiers in Vietnam spread far beyond the foldout Playmate. Troops appropriated the magazine’s bunny mascot and the company’s logo, painting it on planes, helicopters and tanks. They incorporated the logo into patches and “playboy” into call signs and unit nicknames. Adopting the symbol of Playboy was a small rebellion to the conformity of military life and a testament to the impact of the magazine on soldiers’ lives and morale.

And the magazine returned the favor. Long after the war ended, it funded documentaries on the war, Agent Orange research and post-traumatic stress disorder studies. It is a commitment that testifies to this enduring relationship between the publication and the soldier, and reveals how the magazine is a surprising legacy of one of America’s longest wars.

Post: #209

(10-07-2017 04:52 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  There is a deleted scene in Apocalypse Now where they run into the Playboy Bunnies a second time. Their helicopter crash landed and they had to fuck the sailors in exchange for fuel to get back home.

Here's the scene:

Post: #210

A not-so-positive take on Hefner's legacy:

John Nolte Wrote:Divorce, broken homes, bankruptcy, generations of children raised by a single parent, sexually-transmitted diseases, addiction, AIDs, early death, loneliness, despair, guilt, spiritual ruin, and 58 million innocent children butchered in the one place they should be safest, in their own mother’s womb.

That was the analog fallout.

The digital fallout is somehow worse.

These days, one ill-considered click of your browser’s setting instantly reveals the truth, that pornography is a satanic drug, something that went from just being dirty, into something that is so unspeakably degrading towards women I dare not describe it.

Like any drug, in order to produce the desired effect, the potency must be increased and increased and increased… This means that with the hollow promise of Kardashianism, and after just a few months of living the dream as a porn queen in a meat market always looking for fresh meat, countless young women are being chewed up and spit out, their lives ruined forever by an Internet that is forever.

And those are the lucky ones, the ones who don’t try to heal a soul wounded by self-degradation with the kind of illegal drugs that can only be paid for through even more self-degradation.

On the other side of that computer screen is a generation of boys just a click away from a drug that will physically and mentally warp them into the dysfunctional freak Hefner himself eventually became — a lonely, frustrated recluse living in someone else’s decrepit home; a pathetic sex addict surrounded by a harem of living centerfolds, but one who could only perform with the aid of hardcore porn in one corner and his Bunnies pretending to have a lesbian orgy in the other.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2...ight-hell/

Post: #211

(10-07-2017 04:58 PM)Icarus Wrote:  Surprisingly, the NYTimes published an interesting article this year: How Playboy explains Vietnam.

Amber Batura Wrote:FEB. 28, 2017

....
And the magazine returned the favor. Long after the war ended, it funded documentaries on the war, Agent Orange research and post-traumatic stress disorder studies. It is a commitment that testifies to this enduring relationship between the publication and the soldier, and reveals how the magazine is a surprising legacy of one of America’s longest wars.

tl;dr - The Vietnam War and Playboy Magazine were powerful social engineering agents which destroyed a whole generation*, though young men at the time were too naive to see this, as are Boomers, Xers and Ys today, especially with the "progressive" MSM constantly churning out fluff pieces like this one above about how Playboy and other agents of degeneracy saved the world.

We've seen the same exact shit, verbatim, written about Helen Gurley Brown and Cosmo Mag, or that CIA bitch Steinem and her deep state funded "Ms." magazine, all the glowing praise. You now have millions of naive broads idolizing these lifetime actors that brought them nothing but abject misery.

Agents of subversion like Brown and Steinem who targeted young women with well-thought out plans to destroy their natural ability to form stable lifelong households have their male equivalents, and the dayrobe bunnyman is way up on that list. His program is the mirror image of theirs, packaged towards the other half of the market.

Two generations later, you have playas like Cobra gushing over just how dope Heff really was, and going on about how a real-life pimp like him was so "pimpin", with a straight face...


*the Vietnam war wasn't nearly as destructive as the world wars as far as the body count was concerned, but it was a more powerful vector for social change. That was one of its main goals; the right-left divide was a product of this war, as was the sex/drugs/rock'n roll culture it helped foster, and this is why it was allowed to drag on forever, along with the running debt tab. You won't see any of this angle in Burns' Nam narrative though.

Post: #212

I think it is more useful for men to look at what Hefner did correct, to see what they can learn about interacting with women from his example, rather than putting him down. Putting down a successful person robs you of valuable lessons.

I think that something Hefner gets little credit for but is highly useful to note was his honesty with women. He presented himself as a man who intended on having a harem without apologies, and then attracted the women into his life who voluntarily agreed to it.

Some men believe it is useful to manipulate and lie about their intentions, or secretly have multiple girlfriends. But in the end this always backfires. It is also unproductive and creates bad feelings and motivation for revenge. Plus its bad for your self esteem, because you are being accepted for a lie and not who you are.

When you present yourself honestly, you can widely advertise yourself to attract the women who would naturally be attracted to you. This was also Hefner's primary method to have sex with young women into his 90s, something which most men can only dream of. He unapologetically and honestly declared himself to be a man who can have sex with younger women in his 90s.

Lesson: Openly and honestly advertise who you are so you attract the women who are interested in you.

Post: #213

(10-07-2017 04:38 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  At his peak in the 70s, Hef was worth around $200 million. Jack is over $390 - it's still not even close.

The dude made money but it wasn't some huge empire like people think. It was a magazine and basic merchandise branding. Hef lost his chance at a real empire when he lost the casino business...dude would have been a billionaire if he hadn't screwed that up. And he screwed it up because he was a drug addict on a massive ego trip.

There's nothing about Hef's business sense that's admirable beyond the first 3 years of starting Playboy.

I've always respected Jack for his brief relationship with Lara Flynn Boyle. She was quite the dream in her prime. I can't seem to find any recent photos of her. Here they are in 2002. Jack was born in 1933, and she was born in 1970. Jack is certainly more worthy of my respect than Hefner was:

Post: #214

(10-08-2017 02:08 AM)Sherman Wrote:  I think it is more useful for men to look at what Hefner did correct, to see what they can learn about interacting with women from his example, rather than putting him down. Putting down a successful person robs you of valuable lessons.

Lesson: Openly and honestly advertise who you are so you attract the women who are interested in you.

Unless you are gonna run a Harvey Weinstein type of casting couch operation, I'm not sure how useful that lesson is. Sure, honesty and vulnerability are important but that is not game. Was Hefner doing this and was it working even before he had founded Playboy and became famous?

I've learned far more from Trump.

Post: #215

@Puckerman - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of my favourite films. I'll need to pick up some more of Nicholson's work.

Post: #216

(09-29-2017 11:52 PM)Sherman Wrote:  Here is a clip from the TV show "Playboy Penthouse" filmed in 1959. Starting at about 3 minutes, Hefner talks to two of the playmates. They really sound very sweet and down to earth.

There is something very interesting about a man sitting with women sitting or kneeling on the floor around him.

I read that in parts of Easter Europe like Russia, there are schools to teach women how to please their men and what to do when they want something from him, one of the things they do is when the men is sitting go close to him and kneel or sit on the floor, just like the two girls sitting next to Hef.

Post: #217

Cobra: While certainly, Hef got a ton of free pussy from whores wanting to become a playmate of some kind, it does not change the fact that without that carrot to dangle he would have not gotten the pussy. Compare that famous men who get girls with no promise of any reward, or men without any fame but at least some money who do the same thing.

I see Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein as basically on the same page, but Hugh actually had a pimping business going that glorified whores, so I guess he gets more evil points.

Post: #218

One thing that has not been brought up was that Hef was a pioneer in breaking down racial barriers. He brought African Americans on his show when hardly anybody else would. He featured a lot of Jazz artists and others. His party invites didn't know racial prejudice:

Hef and Louis Armstrong:



Hef and Sammy Davis, Jr.:



Hef and Ella Fitzgerald:

Post: #219

(10-08-2017 06:24 PM)puckerman Wrote:  One thing that has not been brought up was that Hef was a pioneer in breaking down racial barriers. He brought African Americans on his show when hardly anybody else would. He featured a lot of Jazz artists and others. His party invites didn't know racial prejudice:

I call bullshit on the race angle as well.

75% to 90% of bunny girls at his house parties, casinos, other venues and the nude models in playboy magazine were white girls. This high quota of white females was held from the 1950s all the way until the late 1990s/early 2000s. A black, asian or other ethnic nude model in playboy magazine was an occasional treat...you might have 1 or 2 non white centrefolds per year at most. Also, look at the thousands of photos of Hef surrounded by bunnies over the span of 50 years...how many non white girls can you find ?

Hef knew where the main source of his never ending cash cow was.
Thirsty white men with disposable income were the demographic group he had to target the most to keep the cash rolling in.

Equality my ass.

Post: #220

   

Post: #221

This whole narrative of Black Americans as being oppressed in the 1950s, and then they became liberated , thanks to the Civil Rights movement, crooked politicians like LBJ and globalist cultural change agents like Hefner, is mostly a blue pill myth.

Black families and communities were far stronger back in the 50s, when out of wedlock rates were actually lower in the black community than among whites. Low crime rates, high income growth rates, well-paying blue-collar jobs, strong families, no drugs, no gangs. There were no ghettos, and no ghetto culture.

The 1960s "reformers" destroyed all this, if you care to dig below the veneer of the admittedly positive desegragation policies, which hid a much darker agenda that targeted the black male with predatory social policies, subversive ghetto culture pushed by social engineers (Blacksploitation, porn, ghetto music, drug culture). They went after the baby, while highlighting the bathwater, and Hef was an integral part of that social engineering plan.

Harlem in the 1940s




Harlem in the 1970s




fact sheet about Gloria Steinem’s operations against the various social and political movements in America, particularly her role in creating a hateful and virulent strain of Black feminism that attacks Black men while partnering with the white establishment.

http://knowledgeisking.ning.com/forum/topics/happydays

Post: #222

Looks like race threads are RVF's version of "6 degrees of kevin bacon." Can literally turn any topic into a race discussion.

Post: #223

(10-09-2017 02:27 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Looks like race threads are RVF's version of "6 degrees of kevin bacon." Can literally turn any topic into a race discussion.

Generally a result of our dearest politics posters getting in over their heads and out of their element.

Easy to trace from where they have accumulated the majority of their reps from(other than meet ups as that's carte blanche could be about anything they discussed in person such as staring at the sun to improve your eyesight, the earth bring flat, or about succubi) and not from where they supposedly posted as well.

Want to know if someone has game? Check their reps. As the forum has evolved further than game due to what some consider more pressing topics of discussion.

Post: #224

I think Hugh Hefner is an amazing story. A story about a regular schmuck that gets divorced and decides to live a lifestyle only others can dream about.

You may or may not like what he did for a living, but it can't be denied that the guy is an inspiration. Imagine if a guy from this forum got divorce raped and went on to live a life of banging 10/10 models and throwing parties for the world's biggest celebrities, he would be a legend.

RIP Hef, you showed what's possible.

Post: #225

Maybe I am an inveterate cynic, but isn't most of human history a recurrence of the same old story: a charismatic man seducing young women to sate his lust, and seducing young men to convince them to take risks he does not want to bear?

In a more distant past, the king would convince young men to fight for his interests. If they died, their problem. If they survived, they could be rewarded with some of the land they had conquered, or some of the loot they had amassed.

Today, an established venture capitalist convinces starry-eyed young men to take insane risks at infantile and infantilizing startups. If they fail, their problem. If they succeed, they take a small slice of the pie.

In essence, Hefner found a way to charge a tax on millions of men who willingly subsidized his harem. They were willing cucks. They allowed themselves to be seduced. They were adults, weren't they? Weren't they responsible for their actions?

In an ideal world, one could protect everyone from human predators like Hefner. Yet, far too many people offer themselves as prey. Some get burned once and finally open their eyes. They pass one of life's great tests. Others remain blind their whole lives. They are happy as prey. They come to this world merely to feed superior animals. How can one help someone who does not want to be helped?